15-11-04 Apple Reply in Support of Alice Motion Against Two Ericsson Patents

Case 3:15-cv-00154-JD Document 141 Filed 11/04/15 Page 1 of 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
WILLIAM F. LEE (admitted pro hac vice)

[email protected]
JOSEPH J. MUELLER (admitted pro hac vice)
[email protected]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
Telephone: (617) 526-6000
Facsimile: (617) 526-5000
MARK D. SELWYN (CA SBN 244180)
[email protected]
CHRISTINE E. DUH (CA SBN 228544)
[email protected]
HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: (650) 858-6000
Facsimile: (650) 858-6100
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Apple Inc.
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16
APPLE INC., a California Corporation,
17
18
19
20
Plaintiff,
v.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
a Swedish Corporation, and ERICSSON, INC.,
a Delaware Corporation,
Defendants.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Case No. 3:15-cv-00154-JD
Counterclaim-Plaintiffs,
v.
APPLES REPLY BRIEF IN

SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
INVALIDITY OF ASSERTED
CLAIMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS.
6,445,917 AND 8,023,990 UNDER 35
U.S.C. 101
Hon. James Donato

Hearing Date: November 18, 2015
Time: 10:00am
Courtroom: 11 (19th Floor)
Counterclaim-Defendant.
28
APPLES REPLY BRIEF ISO

SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY
UNDER 35 U.S.C. 101
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................2
I.
The 917 Patent Claims Fail Both Steps Of The Alice Test. ...............................................2
A.
Alice Step 1: The Essence of the Alleged 917 Invention Is The

Concept Of Event-Based Reporting.........................................................................2
B.
Alice Step 2: Ericsson Relies on Non-Existent and Generic Claim

Limitations To Attempt to Manufacture an Inventive Concept Where
None Exists. .............................................................................................................5
7
8
9
II.
The 990 Patent Claims Fail Both Steps Of The Alice Test. .............................................10
10
A.
Alice Step 1: The Essence of the Alleged 990 Invention Is The

Concept Of Following Commands To An Individual While Ignoring
Commands To A Group. ........................................................................................10
B.
Alice Step 2: Ericsson Relies on Non-Existent and Generic Claim

Limitations To Attempt To Manufacture an Inventive Concept Where
None Exists ............................................................................................................12
11
12
13
14
CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

UNDER 35 U.S.C. 101
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
1
2
Page(s)
Cases
Accenture Global Svcs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,

728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..........................................................................................2, 5, 6
5
6
Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,

No. 6:15-v-0029, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77411 (June 12, 2015 W.D. Tex.) ...........................4
7
8
9
10
11
Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DirecTV, LLC,

No. W:15-CV-030, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92889 (W.D. Tex. July 7, 2015) ........................11
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intl,
134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ..................................................................................................... passim
Cloud Satchel, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
76 F. Supp. 3d 553 (D. Del. 2014) ...........................................................................................13
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Comcast IP Holdings I, LLC v. Sprint Commcns Co.,

55 F. Supp. 3d 544 (D. Del. 2014) .............................................................................................5
Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo,
776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................10
DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................5
Eclipse IP LLC v. McKinley Equip. Corp.,
No. SACV 14-742-GW, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125529
(C.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2014) ........................................................................................................10
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
56 F. Supp. 3d 1167 (C.D. Cal. 2014) .......................................................................................3
In re TLI Commcns LLC Patent Litig.,
87 F. Supp. 3d 773 (E.D. Va. Feb. 6, 2015) ..............................................................................2
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................4
24
25
26
27
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,

No. PWG-14-11, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116740 (D. Md. Sept. 2, 2015) ................................7
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co.,
No. 1:14-CV-00220, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129153
(W.D. Pa. Sept. 25, 2015) ..........................................................................................................6
28
ii

UNDER 35 U.S.C. 101
1
2
3
4
5
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,

Nos. 10-1067, 12-1581, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52527 (D. Del. Apr. 22, 2015) ......................1
Jericho Sys. Corp. v. Axiomatics, Inc.,
No. 3:14-CV-2281-K, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60421,
(N.D. Tex. May 7, 2015)..........................................................................................................10
Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
132 S.Ct. 1289 (2012) ..........................................................................................................7, 13
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Pship,

131 S. Ct. 2238 (2011) ...............................................................................................................2
MyMedicalRecords v. Walgreen Co.,
Nos. 13-631, 13-2538, 13-7285, 13-3560, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176891
(C.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2014) ........................................................................................................13
Open Txt SA v. Box Inc.,
78 F. Supp. 3d 1043 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .......................................................................................3
OpenTV, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
No. 14-cv-01622, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44856 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2015) ..............................1
Shortridge v. Found. Constr. Payroll Serv., LLC,
No. 14-cv-04850, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49126 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2015) ............................1
Source Search Techs., LLC v. Kayak Software Corp.,
No. 11-3388, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85266 (D.N.J. July 1, 2015)...........................................6
Thales Visionix Inc. v. U.S.,
122 Fed. Cl. 245 (2015) .........................................................................................................3, 8
Tranxition, Inc. v. Lenovo (U.S.) Inc.,
No. 3:12-cv-01065, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89593 (D. Or. July 9, 2015).................................1
21
Vehicle Intelligence & Safety LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,

78 F. Supp. 3d 884 (N.D. Ill. 2015) ...........................................................................................5
22
Statutes
23
35 U.S.C. 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
24
25
26
27
28
iii

UNDER 35 U.S.C. 101
INTRODUCTION
In its Opening Brief, Apple explained that the 917 patent is directed to the abstract
concept of event-based reporting and that the 990 patent is directed to the abstract concept of
following commands to an individual while ignoring commands broadcast to a group. In
response, Ericsson does not dispute that these are abstract concepts, but instead argues that the
claims are directed to different concepts, contrary to the patents own description of the alleged
inventions. Ericsson improperly relies on non-existent or generic claim limitations in an attempt
to create an inventive concept. In fact, the asserted claims, whether considered as individual
elements or an ordered combination, lack any limitation sufficient to transform the abstract idea
10
that is at their heart into a patent-eligible invention.1
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ericsson asserts that Apple must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the
claimed inventions are not eligible for patent protection pursuant to 101. (Ericsson Br. at 1.)
But as Judge Stark recently wrote in addressing this issue: The Supreme Court, in its recent
101 opinionsAlice, Bilski, Mayo, and Assn for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics,
Inc., U.S., 131 S. Ct. 2107, 186 L.Ed.2d 124 (2013)did not cite any standard of proof to be
applied. Nor is there any binding precedent from the Federal Circuit deciding whether patent
ineligibility must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Symantec Corp., Nos. 10-1067, 12-1581, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52527, *14 (D. Del. Apr. 22,
2015). (summarizing cases and granting in part defendants 101 motion on summary
judgment). Courts in this District and elsewhere have found neither the presumption of validity,
nor the clear and convincing evidence standardapplicable to factual questions of patent
invalidityapplies to legal questions of patent eligibility under 101. See, e.g., OpenTV, Inc. v.
Apple, Inc., No. 14-cv-01622, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44856, *6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2015) (the
Federal Circuit has made it clear that while a presumption of validity attaches in many contexts,
no equivalent presumption of eligibility applies in the section 101 calculus (citation omitted));
Shortridge v. Found. Constr. Payroll Serv., LLC, No. 14-cv-04850, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
49126, *19 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2015) (same); Tranxition, Inc. v. Lenovo (U.S.) Inc., No. 3:12-cv01065, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89593, *10-11 (D. Or. July 9, 2015) (Where the question of
invalidity depends not upon factual disputes, but upon how the law applies to facts as given, the
clear and convincing evidentiary standard simply does not come into play (citing Microsoft
Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Pship, 131 S. Ct. 2238, 2253 (2011) (Breyer, J., concurring)). In any event,
Apple submits that the 917 and 990 patents are patent ineligible under 101 regardless of the
applicable standard.

UNDER 35 U.S.C. 101
1
2
3
ARGUMENT
I.
The 917 Patent Claims Fail Both Steps Of The Alice Test.
A.
Alice Step 1: The Essence of the Alleged 917 Invention Is The Concept Of
Event-Based Reporting.
4
Ericsson does not and cannot dispute that the concept of event-based reporting is
5
abstract. Indeed, Ericsson does not even address, much less attempt to distinguish, Accenture
6
Global Svcs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013), and similar
7
cases cited by Apple, that make clear that generating tasks [based on] rules . . . to be completed
8
upon the occurrence of an event is an abstract concept. Id. at 1344 (ellipsis in original). (See
9
Apple Opening Br. at 5-6 (collecting cases).)
10
Ericsson tries instead to re-cast the alleged invention as something else. Ericsson now
11
contends that the asserted claims are not directed to event-based measurement reporting in and
12
of itself (Ericsson Br. at 7), even though its own expert had stated in his declaration construing
13
the same claims, The solution of the 917 patent is event-based measurement reporting.
14
(Nettleton Decl. (Dkt. 126) 23.) Likewise, Ericsson now spends several pages to make the
15
alleged invention sound more technically complicated and different from what it had succinctly
16
described in a single paragraph in its claim construction brief:
17
18
19
The 917 patent relates to event-based measurement reporting: Rather than

report certain measurements periodically, the 917 describes having the mobile
device report the measurements only when certain events or conditions that would
make the measurements relevant are satisfied.
20
(Defendants Opening Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. 124), at 2.) The patent itself makes clear
21
that the essence of the purported invention is event-based reporting. For example, the
22
Background and Summary of the Invention states: The present invention provides event-
23
based or driven reporting of mobile station measurements . . . so that it can take timely and
24
appropriate action without sending outdated or redundant measurement reports. (917 patent,
25
Abstract; col. 3, ll. 30-44.)
26
Ericssons attempt to focus on other limitations (Ericsson Br. at 10) misapplies the legal
27
test under the first prong of Alice. As this Court and others have explained, [i]n evaluating the
28

UNDER 35 U.S.C. 101
first prong of the Mayo / Alice test, which looks to see if the claim in question is directed at an
abstract idea, the Court distills the gist of the claim. Open Txt SA v. Box Inc., 78 F. Supp. 3d
1043, 1046-47 (N.D. Cal. 2015). This inquiry requires focusing at a higher level of generality
on the abstract idea or concept underlying the . . . patent, rather than on a concrete application
of the idea. In re TLI Commcns LLC Patent Litig., 87 F. Supp. 3d 773, 787 (E.D. Va. Feb. 6,
2015); see also Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F. Supp. 3d 1167, 1173 (C.D. Cal. 2014)
(Courts should recite a claims purpose at a reasonably high level of generality. Step one is a
sort of quick look test, the purpose of which is to identify a risk of preemption and
ineligibility.).
10
The limitations identified by Ericssonusing a mobile radio to measure, add, and
11
report network information for purposes of handover or power controlrepresent
12
conventional cellular features that are merely characteristics of the claims implementation,
13
rather than its general idea.2 Open Txt SA, 78 F. Supp. 3d at 1047. (See Apple Opening Br. at
14
7-8.) These limitations do not change the fact that the claims are, on their face, directed to [the]
15
abstract idea of event-based reporting.3 Thales Visionix Inc. v. U.S., 122 Fed. Cl. 245, 253
16
(2015) (the inclusion of some concrete claim elementseven elements associated with
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The concept of mobile radio event-based reporting and adding offset values in eventbased reporting systems have long been widely implemented and conventional ideas. In the
cellular network context, for example, the IS-95A (CDMA) standard introduced in 1995 utilized
a reporting scheme whereby the mobile radio could be configured to send a Pilot Strength
Measurement Message to the network containing measurements consistent with the event
whenever any of the following events occur, where the specified events include, for example,
the measured strength of the Candidate Set pilot exceed[ing] the strength of an Active Set pilot
by T_COMPs x 0.5 dB, where T_COMP represents an offset value added to the measured
value of the radio-related parameter. See Declaration of Mark Selwyn, Ex. 1, Mobile StationBase Station Compatibility Standard for Dual-Mode Wideband Spread Spectrum Cellular
System, TIA/EIA/IS-95-A (May 1995), at 6.6.6.2.5.2, Fig. 6.6.6.3-2 (Pilot Strength
Measurement Message Sent, P0 > P1 + T_COMP x 0.5 dB).
3
Apple does not ignore these limitations, as Ericsson contends. As Apple demonstrated
(Opening Br. at 7), the 917 patent acknowledges the first and fourth steps of claim 1 (i.e., a
mobile radio measuring radio-related parameters and reporting to the network for purposes of
handover or power control) are conventional techniques in cellular systems (917 patent at col. 2,
ll. 58-67), and that the third step of adding an offset (a value to counteract or counterbalance)
is itself an abstract and known concept. (See Apples Responsive Claim Construction Brief (Dkt.
133), at 1-2 (offset term should be given plain meaning); see also supra n. 3.)

UNDER 35 U.S.C. 101
computer- or Internet-based technologyis insufficient to indicate that the claims as a whole are
not directed to an abstract idea, if those elements are well overtaken in the claim by the
articulation of the abstract idea itself (quoting Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
No. 6:15-v-0029, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77411, at *8 (June 12, 2015 W.D. Tex.))); see also
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of
use or technological environment, such as the Internet.).
8
9
Ericsson also contends the purported problem the patent is addressing specifically
arises in cellular networks and the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in that technology.
10
(See Ericsson Br. at 1.) Not so. The 917 patent merely recognizes the same universal benefit of
11
conditional reporting that would apply in any other contextthe desired result of fewer and
12
more timely reports. (See Ericsson Br. at 6-7; 917 patent at col. 3, ll. 30-44.) As Ericsson itself
13
explains, the 917 patent recognizes that sending reports periodically may undesirably increase
14
the volume of reports or lead to outdated [reports], whereas sending reports when a condition
15
is satisfied would reduce[] the number of reports and result only in reports that are potentially
16
relevant. (Ericsson Br. at 6-7 (citing 917 patent at col. 2, l. 67- col. 3, l. 3); see also 917
17
patent at col. 3, ll. 30-44 (The present invention provides event-based or driven reporting of
18
mobile-station measurement. . . . Accordingly, the occurrence of an event and/or the satisfaction
19
of a condition triggers the sending of the report to the network. That way the network receives
20
the information so that it can take timely and appropriate action without sending outdated or
21
redundant measurement reports that do not convey relevant or new measurement
22
information).) As Apples analogy to a stock broker demonstrates (Apple Opening Br. at 5), the
23
problems with periodic reporting (e.g., sending an hourly stock price update) are not unique to
24
cellular communications, nor is the solution of event-based reporting (e.g., sending a report only
25
26
27
28

UNDER 35 U.S.C. 101
when the stock meets certain conditions).4 Cf. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773
F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding claims intended to address a specific technological
challenge inherent to the Internet relating to clickable advertising banners patent eligible).
For this reason, courts have repeatedly recognized that the concept of event-based or
conditional decision makingeven when limited to particular (and even complex) technological
fieldsis an unpatentable abstract concept. (See Apple Opening Br. at 5-6 (discussing
Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1344 (the heart of the claimed invention is the abstract concept of
generating tasks [based on] rules . . . to be completed upon the occurrence of an event),
Vehicle Intelligence & Safety LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 78 F. Supp. 3d 884, 893 (N.D.
10
Ill. 2015) (claims directed at providing and altering impairment testing in response to one or
11
more of several listed factors represents the abstract idea of making a conditional decision),
12
and Comcast IP Holdings I, LLC v. Sprint Commcns Co., 55 F. Supp. 3d 544, 548-50 (D. Del.
13
2014) (concept of making a conditional determination is abstract).) Notably, Ericsson does not
14
even attempt to distinguish these cases, from which one can draw a direct parallel between the
15
alleged solution of the 917 patent as described by the 917 patent and Dr. Nettletonevent-
16
based measurement reportingand the abstract concept found to be patent ineligible.
17
(Nettleton Decl. (Dkt. 126) 23.)
18
B.
Alice Step 2: Ericsson Relies on Non-Existent and Generic Claim Limitations

To Attempt to Manufacture an Inventive Concept Where None Exists.
19
The touchstone of the inventive step inquiry for 101 eligibility is the claim language
20
itselfthe claim limitations must recite significantly more than the mere application of an
21
abstract concept to a particular technological environment so as to transform the nature of the
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ericsson does not dispute that the notion of event-based reporting is a basic building
block of communication, and that Apples analogy to a stock-broker making a conditional report
to her client reflects the abstract nature of the invention. Instead, in attacking Apples analogy,
Ericsson entirely misses the point by identifying aspects of the claims that are allegedly
missing (e.g., measuring a radio-related parameter) while entirely ignoring the purpose of
the analogy, which is simply to demonstrate the abstract nature of event-based reporting.
Whether Ericsson has added significantly more to that abstract idea is the second Alice factor,
discussed in the following section.

UNDER 35 U.S.C. 101
claim into a patent eligible application. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intl,
134 S. Ct. 2347, 2353, 2355 (2014); Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1345 (affirming summary judgment
of invalidity under 101 because the claims do not contain significantly more than the
underlying abstract concept (citation omitted)); Source Search Techs., LLC v. Kayak Software
Corp., No. 11-3388, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85266, at *33 (D.N.J. July 1, 2015) (DDR
Holdings tells us that when a patent holder seeking to establish 101 eligibility for an otherwise
abstract idea points to a particular element of a patents claims as solving a computer-centric
problem, the claims must specify how that solution works. That specificity removes the claims
from the abstract realm.); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., No. 1:14-CV-00220,
10
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129153, at *99-100 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 25, 2015) (finding that language in
11
the patents specifications and figures disclosing modules and discovery engine did not
12
make the claims patentable because, among other reasons, they are not referenced anywhere
13
inside the Patent claims themselves, but are only included in the specification). Here, nothing
14
in the claim language amounts to an inventive concept necessary to transform the nature of the
15
claims into a patent-eligible invention.
16
Ericsson argues that Apple ignores and glosses over claim limitations that solve
17
particular problems arising uniquely in the cellular communications context. (Ericsson Br. at 12-
18
13.) But in fact it is Ericsson that glosses over the claim language and imports limitations from
19
the specification in an attempt to identify an inventive feature where none exists. Notably, while
20
Ericsson contends that the claims provide specific solutions such as allocating handover and
21
power control logic between the network and mobile devices in a particular way that has
22
efficiency advantages, moving cell boundaries, ensuring timely, relevant, and efficient
23
provision of information, and specifying certain prescribed conditions (id. at 13), Ericsson
24
does not (and cannot) tie any of these alleged features to the claims.5 See Intellectual Ventures I
25
26
27
28
Ericsson repeatedly suggests in its opening brief that the 917 patent introduced the idea
of moving part of the work of handover or power control decisions from the network to the
mobile device and allocat[ing] handover and power control decision-making and
computations between the network and mobile devices. (Ericsson Br. at 7, 13-14.) But as the

UNDER 35 U.S.C. 101
LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., No. PWG-14-11, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116740, at *60 (D. Md.
Sept. 2, 2015) (unlike in DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 125859, the claims do not include any
additional features that describe sufficiently how this result is achieved. The claims do not
recite the software or formula needed to accomplish the invention in a way that limits the
preemptive effect . . . .).
To the contrary, the claims recite conventional features of mobile radiosmeasure,
add, and reportand apply to that context the abstract notion of waiting to send a report
until some unspecified (and certainly not prescribed) condition is satisfied (evaluate the
offset, measured radio-related parameter . . . with respect to a predetermined condition). (See
10
Apple Opening Br. at 7.) The claims then merely state (without specifying how or why) that this
11
abstract concept should be applied for purposes of handover or power controlwhich the
12
patent acknowledges at the outset were known purposes of mobile reporting. 917 patent at col.
13
2, ll. 9-54; see Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (explaining the additional elements within the claims,
14
apart from the abstract idea itself, must involve more than well-understood, routine,
15
conventional activit[ies] previously known to the industry) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs.
16
v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012). This presents precisely the general
17
preemption problem the court in Alice warned is not permitted.6 See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358
18
(if a patents recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to implemen[t] an abstract
19
idea on . . . a computer, . . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility. This conclusion
20
accords with the pre-emption concern that undergirds our 101 jurisprudence. (citations
21
omitted)).
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
917 patent recognizes, this concept of mobile-assisted handoff was well known in the prior art.
(See, e.g., 917 patent at col. 2, ll. 9-11 (Deciding which cells to involve in handover often
requires coordination between the mobile station and radio network).)
6
Further, Ericsson does not dispute that the 917 claims fail to introduce any new
hardware for performing event-based reporting. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 ([W]hat petitioner
characterizes as specific hardwarea data processing system with communications controller
and data storage unit, for example is purely functional and generic. . . . As a result, none of
the hardware recited by the system claims offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally
linking the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation
via computers. (citations omitted)).

UNDER 35 U.S.C. 101
In response, with respect to the lone asserted independent claim (claim 1), Ericsson relies
exclusively on the use of an offset to save the claims, arguing for a narrow and unjustified
construction of that term by importing limitations from examples in the specification. (See
Ericsson Br. at 12.) Specifically, Ericsson contends that the word offset in the claims
necessarily refers to a concrete amount that is associated with an individual radio channel or
cell that the network operator can deploy to favor or disfavor a particular channel or to move a
cell boundary. (Ericsson Br. at 12.) But the claim language merely refers to an offseta
commonly known word and conventional technique used in cellular reporting.7 (See Apples
Responsive Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. 133), at 1-2 (offset term should be given plain
10
meaning); supra n.2.) That is how it is described in the 917 specification and how it is used in
11
the claims. (Id.) Nothing in the claims references any concrete amount tied to the offset, as
12
Ericsson contends, nor do the claims mention using an offset to move a cell boundary, to
13
associate the offset with a particular channel or cell, or to allow a network operator to
14
favor or disfavor a particular channel or cell. (See Ericsson Br. at 12-13.) Indeed, Ericssons
15
present construction is inconsistent with its prior construction in previous litigation. In its
16
litigation against Samsung, Ericsson and its prior expert arguedconsistent with Apples
17
construction herethat add either a positive or negative offset should be construed to mean
18
add either a positive or a negative value to the property of a radio network. (Sabharwal Decl.
19
(Dkt. No. 133-13) 43, Ex. D.) Ericsson is now reading limitations into the claims that simply
20
do not exist in an effort to manufacture an inventive concept. See Thales, 122 Fed. Cl. at 253
21
(The Court rejects Plaintiffs attempts to construe its claims more narrowly and less
22
abstractly.).
23
24
25
26
27
28
As demonstrated in Apples Responsive Claim Construction Brief, the 917 specification

broadly describes an offset as a value added to the parameter ([a] positive or negative offset
value may be added to the measured radio-related parameter as a further required condition)
(917 patent at col. 3, l. 66- col. 4, l. 3), and then describes examples of uses of these offsets.
There is no basis to import these exemplary uses into the claims. (See Apple Responsive Claim
Construction Brief (Dkt. 133), at 1-2.)

UNDER 35 U.S.C. 101
Notably (and for good reason), Ericsson does not even argue that a plain meaning
construction of offset renders the claims patent eligible. In any event, even Ericssons narrow
construction of offset does not save the claims. Effectively, all Ericssons construction
requires is that the offset be associated with the thing (a specific channel or cell) that the
mobile radio is measuring. This is akin to the stock broker associating an offset value with a
particular type of stocke.g., weighting in favor of one industry over another by applying a
different offset value that is associated with each. This concept of associating the offset
value with a particular feature of the network is again abstract and not unique to the cellular
context.
10
Likewise, with respect to the asserted dependent claims, Ericsson strains to find an
11
inventive concept and points only to the use of a hysteresis parameter in dependent claim 17,
12
arguing that Apple has failed to establish that using a hysteresis parameter was routine or
13
conventional. (Ericsson Br. at 13.) But there is no dispute that the use of hysteresis parameters
14
was a known and conventional technique. (See, e.g., Apple Inc.s Responsive Claim
15
Construction Brief (Dkt. 133), at 2, Ex. E (1998 Telecom dictionary definition of hysteresis).)
16
Indeed, in its opening claim construction brief, Ericsson itself cites to examples of hysteresis
17
parameters from the prior art and its expert Dr. Nettleton admits that the concept of using
18
hysteresis parameters in this context was well known. (See Defendants Opening Claim
19
Construction Brief (Dkt. 124), at 4-5 (identifying uses of hysteresis parameters in the prior art);
20
Nettleton Decl. (Dkt. 126) at 35 (The concept of a hysteresis parameter, as described in the
21
917 specification, is well-understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art).) While Ericsson
22
suggests, without offering any evidence, that the concept of hysteresis is used in the 917 patent
23
in some unique and inventive way (see Ericsson Br. at 13), that is belied by the claim language,
24
which states only: employ a hysteresis parameter in determining whether a predetermined
25
condition is satisfied. (917 patent at claim 17.) The 917 patent does not purport to use this or
26
27
28

UNDER 35 U.S.C. 101
any other feature in the dependent claims in an inventive way.8 Indeed, the specification
describes hysteresis in a manner entirely consistent with its understood meaning (upon which the
parties substantially agree). (See Apples Responsive Claim Construction Brief at 2-3.)
II.
The 990 Patent Claims Fail Both Steps Of The Alice Test.
A.
6
7
Alice Step 1: The Essence of the Alleged 990 Invention Is The Concept Of
Following Commands To An Individual While Ignoring Commands To A
Group.
Ericsson does not and cannot dispute that the concept of following commands to an
individual while ignoring commands to a group is an abstract concept. Apple cited multiple
cases finding abstract concepts of the same basic kind described in the 990 patent. (See Apples
10
Opening Br. at 11-12 (citing, inter alia, Eclipse IP LLC v. McKinley Equip. Corp., No. SACV
11
14-742-GW (AJWx), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125529, at *20 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2014) (finding
12
idea of asking someone whether they want to perform a task, and if they do, waiting for them to
13
complete it, and if they do not, asking someone else to be abstract); Jericho Sys. Corp. v.
14
Axiomatics, Inc., No. 3:14-CV-2281-K, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60421, at *11-12 (N.D. Tex.
15
May 7, 2015) (finding abstract the idea of applying a rule to determine whether to allow an
16
action to occur)). Ericsson does not even attempt to address these cases.
17
Instead, while conceding that the claims involve disregarding commands addressed to a
18
group, Ericsson contends that the claims are not abstract because they are not directed to that
19
broad concept but rather to mobile devices in a cellular network and, in particular, a specific
20
way of ensuring accurate transmission power controls after a mobile device receives a
21
transmission power control command on a downlink control channel. (Ericsson Br. at 16
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Because Ericsson has not identified any other claim that allegedly includes an inventive
concept, the Court should treat as representative claims 1 and 17 for which Ericsson has
identified the alleged inventive concepts of an offset and a hysteresis parameter. See
Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(Nor did CET identify any other claims as purportedly containing an inventive concept. If CET
disagreed with PNCs or the district courts assessment, CET could have identified claims in its
opposition brief that it believed would not be fairly represented by claims 1 of the 855 and 416
patents for purposes of PNCs 101 challenge.).
10

UNDER 35 U.S.C. 101
(emphasis in original).) As with the 917 patent, Ericssons attempt to focus on purported
specific applications misapplies the legal test under the first prong of Alice.
The 990 patent makes clear that the gist of the claims is the basic idea of making a
decision to ignore commands directed to a group and following instead those commands directed
to a specific individual. In the Summary, the patent describes the alleged invention as follows:
According to the method, the transmission power control commands received by the users
comprise an identifier for the intended user or users; the identifier is either an identifier for a
specific user or for a group of users, and according to the method of the invention, a user
disregards a transmission power control command if the identifier which is comprised in the
10
transmission power control command is for a group of users in which that user is included.
11
(990 patent at col. 3, ll. 4-11.)
12
The fact that the 990 patent claims this abstract concept in the context of transmission
13
power control commands sent to mobile devices in a cellular network which Ericsson does
14
not dispute are commands conventionally used in cellular systems does not render the
15
abstract concept patent eligible. Once again, the prohibition against patenting abstract ideas
16
cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the idea to a particular technological
17
environment. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (finding neither limiting the use of an abstract idea
18
to a particular technological environment[,] nor simply stating an abstract idea and adding the
19
words apply it[,] will transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (internal
20
quotation marks and citations omitted)); Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, No. W:15-
21
CV-030, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92889, at *15 (W.D. Tex. July 7, 2015) (finding claim that
22
takes an abstract idea and says apply it to a wireless cellular telephone device to be abstract);
23
id. at *6 (dismissing argument that the use of cell phones and downloadable applications in the
24
claims make the abstract idea tangible and concrete, because under this view, it is difficult to
25
foresee any patent that utilizes a computer component classified as abstract).
26
Ericsson criticizes Apples analogies to basic decisions from everyday lifee.g., the
27
math teacher who receives no volunteers to answer a question put on the board but is sure to
28
11

UNDER 35 U.S.C. 101
elicit a response by calling on a student individuallyas perhaps the best evidence that the
claims are not directed to an abstract idea. (Ericsson Br. at 17.) In attacking Apples analogies,
Ericsson argues that the 990 patent is about a cellular system made functional by disregarding
certain group commands whereas Apples analogies are about households and schoolrooms
made dysfunctional by the disregard of group commands. (Id.) Ericssons proffered distinction
misses the point. Disregarding commands to a group and instead following commands directed
to a specific individual or user is an abstract concept, and deploying that abstract concept in a
cellular system does not render the idea patentable regardless of the effect on the function of the
system.
10
As Apples analogies correctly demonstrate, deciding to ignore commands directed to a
11
group, and following instead those commands directed to a specific individual is a basic decision
12
that we experience in daily life that does not uniquely apply to cellular communications.
13
Implementing it with respect to cellular communications does not make it patent-eligible.
14
B.
Alice Step 2: Ericsson Relies on Non-Existent and Generic Claim Limitations

To Attempt To Manufacture an Inventive Concept Where None Exists
15
As with the 917 patent, Ericsson does not and cannot demonstrate that the claim
16
limitations recite significantly more than the mere application of an abstract concept to a
17
particular technological environment. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. In the 990 claims, the abstract
18
idea is merely implemented using conventional technologies and techniques, each of which the
19
990 patent admits is prior art.
20
Ericsson does not dispute that the only step in claim 1 not described in the Background
21
as prior art is the abstract concept of disregarding the transmission power control command for a
22
group of user terminals. (Ericsson Br. at 14-16, 18; see Apple Opening Br. at 12-13.) Similarly,
23
Ericsson does not contend that the transceiver and control processor in claim 7 add any
24
meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. (Ericsson Br. at 15-16.) At most, Ericsson generically
25
contends that the four asserted dependent claims add further limitations specifically directed to
26
cellular network technology. (Id. at 16.) But Ericsson never explains how those further
27
limitations add anything (much less significantly more) to the abstract concept. And Ericsson
28
12

UNDER 35 U.S.C. 101
does not dispute that each of the additional limitations found in the dependent claims is also
described in the Background as admitted prior art. (See 990 patent at col. 1, ll. 24-26 (One
of the downlink control channels in the LTE system is the PDCCH channel, the Physical
Downlink Control Channel.); id. at col. 1, l. 45 (The PDCCH can use various formats for the
DCI.).)
Instead, Ericsson suggests that Apples argument does not suffice because the question
whether a particular invention is novel is wholly apart from whether the invention falls into a
category of statutory subject matter. (Ericsson Br. at 18.) But that misses the point, namely,
that simply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality, to ... abstract
10
ideas cannot make those . . . ideas patentable. Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1300; see also Alice,
11
134 S. Ct. at 2357 (A claim that recites an abstract idea must include additional features to
12
ensure that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract
13
idea]. (bracketed language in original)); id at 2359 (explaining the additional elements within
14
the claims, apart from the abstract idea itself, must involve more than well-understood, routine,
15
conventional activit[ies] previously known to the industry (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294;
16
bracketed language in original). The patents application of the abstract concept to only known
17
and generic technology is insufficient to render the abstract idea patent-eligible. See, e.g.,
18
MyMedicalRecords v. Walgreen Co., Nos. 13-631, 13-2538, 13-7285, 13-3560, 2014 U.S. Dist.
19
LEXIS 176891, at *7, 12-14 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2014) (finding claims that recited computer
20
components that the patent does not claim to have invented were insufficient to render the
21
abstract idea patent-eligible); Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 ([T]he mere recitation of a generic
22
computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.);
23
Cloud Satchel, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 76 F. Supp. 3d 553, 564 (D. Del. 2014) (even the
24
recitation of specific hardware elements such as a processor, a solid state memory, and a
25
transceiver is insufficient to confer specificity).
26
27
Ericsson next argues that [a]t a minimum, it could not be considered routine and
conventional for a mobile device to disregard a command from the network. (Ericsson Br.
28
13

UNDER 35 U.S.C. 101
at 18.) Ericsson provides no basis for its assertion, which is not surprising given the abundant
prior art disclosing this feature. (See, e.g., Selwyn Decl., Ex. 2 (EP 1 708 384 A1 to Dominique
et al., at 3:7-21 ([T]here may be situations where a mobile ignores the TPC commands from
some of the base stations. A first reason may be where the received TPC command is not
reliable.)).) Accordingly, the 990 claims do nothing more than apply the abstract concept of
disregarding commands addressed to a group to a known cellular environment without adding
any inventive feature.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in Apples Opening Brief, Apple
10
respectfully requests that the Court grant summary judgment that all asserted claims of the 917
11
and 990 patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they claim patent-ineligible subject
12
matter.
13
Dated: November 4, 2015

HALE AND DORR LLP
14
15
/s/ Mark D. Selwyn___________________
16
Mark D. Selwyn
17
18
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-
19
Defendant Apple Inc.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14

UNDER 35 U.S.C. 101
1
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
document has been served on November 4, 2015, to all counsel of record who are deemed to
have consented to electronic service via the Courts CM/ECF system per Civil Local Rule 5.5.
Any other counsel of record will be served by electronic mail, facsimile and/or overnight
delivery.
7
8
/s/ Mark D. Selwyn
Mark D. Selwyn
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15

UNDER 35 U.S.C. 101
Case 3:15-cv-00154-JD Document 141-1 Filed 11/04/15 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
WILLIAM F. LEE (admitted pro hac vice)

[email protected]
JOSEPH J. MUELLER (admitted pro hac vice)
[email protected]
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
Telephone: (617) 526-6000
Facsimile: (617) 526-5000
MARK D. SELWYN (CA SBN 244180)
[email protected]
CHRISTINE E. DUH (CA SBN 228544)
[email protected]
HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: (650) 858-6000
Facsimile: (650) 858-6100
13
14
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Apple Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
16
17
18
19
20

Plaintiff,
v.
21
22
23
Defendants.

DECLARATION OF
MARK D. SELWYN IN SUPPORT OF
APPLES REPLY BRIEF IN
SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
INVALIDITY OF ASSERTED
CLAIMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS.
6,445,917 AND 8,023,990 UNDER 35
U.S.C. 101
24
25
26
Counterclaim-Plaintiffs,
v.
27
Hon. James Donato

Hearing Date: November 18, 2015
Time: 10:00am
Courtroom: 11 (19th Floor)
Counterclaim-Defendant.
28
DECLARATION OF MARK. D. SELWYN

1
2
I, Mark D. Selwyn, declare and state as follows:

1.
I am a partner in the law firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP,
counsel for plaintiff Apple Inc. (Apple) in the above captioned case. I am licensed to practice
law in the State of California, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and State of New York, and am
admitted to practice before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. I have
personal knowledge of the matters stated in this declaration, and I could and would testify
competently thereto if called to do so.
8
9
10
11
2.
I submit this declaration in support of Apples Reply Brief in Support of its
Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,445,917
and 8,023,990 Under 35 U.S.C. 101.
3.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is an excerpt from a true and correct copy of the
12
TIA/EIA Interim Standard IS-95A, entitled Mobile Station-Base Station Compatibility Standard
13
for Dual-Mode Wideband Spread Spectrum Cellular System, TIA/EIA/IS-95-A (May 1995),
14
which Apple produced in this litigation under Bates stamp APL-ERCSN_0000443929-444670.
15
The excerpt includes 6.6.6.2.5.2 and Fig. 6.6.6.3-2 of the TIA/EIA/IS-95-A standard.
16
4.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of European Patent
17
Application No. 1708384A1, titled Method of detecting mobile stations not following power
18
control commands, which Apple produced in this litigation under Bates stamp APL-
19
ERCSN_0000453403-453414.
20
21
22
23
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
Executed on November 4, 2015.
24
25
26
/s/ Mark D. Selwyn__________________

Mark D. Selwyn
27
28
DECLARATION OF MARK. D. SELWYN

EXHIBIT 1

Reproduced By GLOOAI.
ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS
With lrhe Pe~mission of EIA
Under Iteyaft~ ~.~,ement
TIA/EIA
INTERIM STANDARD
Mobile Station-Base Station
Compatibility Standard for Dual-Mode
Wideband Spread Spectrum Cellular
System
TIA/EIA/IS-95-A
(Revision of TIA/EIA/IS-95)
MAY 199~
TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

TELECOMMUNICATIONS
INDI~TRY A$$OCL4TION
ITC COMP 00081315

APL-ERCSN_0000443929
NOTICE
TIAfEIA Engineering Standards and Publications are designed to serve the public interest through
e "ianimthg misunderstandings between manufacturers and purchasers, facilitating interchangeability
and improvement of products, and assisting the purchaser in selecting and obtaining with minimum
delay the proper product for his particular need. Existence of such Standards and Publications shall
not in any respect preclude any member or nonmember of TIA/EIA from manufacturing or selling
products not conforming to such Standards and Publications, nor shall the existence of such
Standards and Publications preclude their voluntary use by those other than TIA/EIA members,
whether the standard is to be used either domestically or internationally.
Recommended Standards and Publications are adopted by TIA/EIA in accordance with the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) patent policy. By such action, TIMEIA does not
assume any liability to any patent owner, nor does it asinine any obligation whatever to parties
adopting the Recommended Standard or Publication.
(From Project Number 3421, formulated under the cognizance of the TR-455 Subcommittee on
wideband Spread Spectrum Digital Technology.)
STANDARDS
TIA/EIA Interim Standards contain information deemed to be of technical value to the industry, and
are published at the request of the originating Committee without necessarily following the rigorous
public review and resolution of comments which is a procedural part of the development of an
TIA/EIA Recommended Standard.
TIA/EIA Interim Standards should be reviewed on an annual basis by the formulating Committee
and a decision made on whether to proceed to develop an TIA/EIA Recommended Standard on this
subject. TIA/EIA Interim Standards must be cancelled by the Committee and removed from the
TIA/EIA Standards Catalog before the end of their fifth year of existence.
Published by
TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION 1995
Standards and Technology Department
2500 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22201
PRICE: Please refer to the current
Catalog of EIA, JEDEC, and TIA STANDARDS and ENGINEERING PUBLICATIONS
or call Giol3al Engineering Documents, USA and Canada (1-800-854-7179)
International (303-397-7956)
All rights reserved
Printed in U.S.A_
ITC COMP 00081316


Page 6- 177
"IIA/EIA/IS-95-A
- If CDMA_FREQr = CDMACHs, FRAME_OFFSETr = FRAME_OFFSETs. or the

set of pilots specified by the message Is disjoint from the Active Set prior to
the action time of the message, the mobile station shall perform actions as
indicated in 6.6.6.2.8, If the message specifies more than one pilot, the
mobile station shall perform actions as specified in 6.6.6.2.7.
If HARD_INCLUDED is not equal to "I, set NUM_PREAMBLEs = "000"~
Store the following parameters from the Extended Hando.~Direction Message:
- F_.xtended Hando~Dtrection Message sequence number (HDM_SEQs =
HDM_SF_.Qr)
- If SEARCH_INCLUDED is equal to "I. then store the following:
+ Search window size for the Active Set and Candidate Set
(SRCH_WIN_As = SRCH_WIN._Ar )
+ Pilot detection threshold [T_ADDs = T_ADDrJ
+ Pilot drop threshold (T_DROPs = T_DROPr)
+ Active Set versus Candidate Set comparison threshold (T_COMPs =
T_CO r}
+ Drop timer value (T_TDROPs = T_TDROPr]
If HARD_iNCLUDED is equaJ to 1. then store the following:
+ Frame offset (FRAME_OFFSETs = FRAME_OFFSETr)
+ Nominal power setting of the target cell INOM_PWRs = NOM_PWRr)
+ Hard handoff traffic channel preamble count required before transmitting
Handoff Completion Message (NIJM_PREAMBLEs = NUM_P~BLEr }
+ CDMA band class [BAND_CLASSs = BAND_CIASSr)
+ Frequency assignment (CDMACHs = CDMA_FREQ r)
One or more occurrences of PILOT_PN, PWR_COMB..IND. and CODE_CHAN
for each included member of the active set.
6.6.6.2.5.2 Processing of Reverse Traffic Channel Handoff Messages
The mobile station sends the following messages on the Reverse Traffic Channel in support
of handoff when its transmitter is enabled and following the receipt of the flrst Base Station
Acknowledg~ Order on the Forward "fraflic Channel:
Pilot StrenF_th Me~zsurement Meq;sao_e: The mobile station shall send an autonomous
Pilot Strength Measurement Message as a message requiring an acknowledgement
and containing measurements Consistent with the event whenever any of the
following events occur:
The strength of a Neighbor Set or Remaining Set pilot is found to be above
T_ADDs.
ITC COMP 00081714


Page 6- 178
3
4
6
7
TIA/EIA/IS-95-A
The strength of a Candidate Set pilot exceeds the strength of an Active Set pilot
by T_COMPs x 0.5 dB and a Pi/ot Strength Mea.suremen~ Message carrying fl~s
information has not been sent since the last Extended HandoffDirection Message
or Hando.ffDirection Message was received.
The handoff drop timer of an Active Set pilot has expired and a Pi/ot Strength
Measurement Message carrying this information has not been sent since the last
Extended Hando.ff DO-ection Message or Handoff Direction Message was received.
l-Jand~._tfCornp_letion Mess_c~e: The mobile station shall send the Harulo.ff

Complegon Message as a message requiring acknowledgement within T56ra seconds
after the action time of a received Extended HandoffDirection Message or Handoff
Direction Message.
6.6.6.2.6 Set Maintenance
6.6.6.2.6.1 Maintenance of the Active Set
The mobile station shall support a maximum Active Set size of N6m pilots. The mobile
station shall track the pilot strengths of all pilots in the Active Set.
When the mobile station is first assigned a Forward Traffic Channel, the mobile station
shall initialize the Active Set to contain only the pilot associated with the assigned Forward
Traffic Channel. When the mobile station processes an Extended Handoff Direction
Message or Hando.ffDirecti~n Message it shall replace the Active Set with the pilots listed in
the message.
6.6.6.2.6.2 Maintenance of the Cax~didate Set
The mobile station shall support a maximum Candidate Set size of N7m pilots.
When the mobile station is first assigned a Forward Traffic Channel, the mobile station
shall initialize the Candidate Set to contain no pilots. The mobile station shall adjust the
Candidate Set whenever any of the follovnng events occur:
o If the mobile station detects that t.he s~rength of a Neighbor Set pilot or a Remaining
Set pilot exceeds T_ADDs, the mobile station shall add the pilot to the Candidate Set.
If the mobile station processes an Extended Handoj~Dtrection Message or Handoff
Direction Message which does not list a pilot in the current Active Set, and the
handoff drop timer corresponding to that pilot has not expired, the mobile station
shall add the pilot to the Candidate Set.
If the mobile station processes an Extended Hondo.~Direction Message or Handoj~Direction Message which lists a pilot in the current Candidate Set, the mobile station
shall delete the pilot from the Candidate Set.
If the handoff drop timer corresponding to a Candidate Set pilot empires, the mobile
station shall delete the pilot from the Candidate Set.
If the mobile station adds a pilot to the Candidate Set and the resulting Candidate
Set size exceeds NTm, the mobile station shaJl ddete from the Candidate Set the pilot
whose hmadoff drop timer is closest to expiration. If more than one such pilot exists.
ITC COMP 00081715


Page 6- 182
TIAIEIA/IS-95-A
6.6.6.3 Examples
The following examples illustrate typical message exchanges between the mobile station
and the base station during handoff. Refer io Appendix B for examples of call processing
during handoff.
Figure 6.6.6.3-1 shows an example of the messages exchanged between the mobile station
and the base station during a typical handoff process.
7
6
g
~
Figure 6.6.6.3-2 illustrates the messaging triggered by a pilot of the Candidate Set as its
strength gradua!ly rises above the strength of each pilot of the Active Set. Note that the
mobile station reports that a Candidate Set pilot is stronger than an Active Set pilot only if
the difference between their respective strengths is at least T_COMP x 0.5 dB.
11
Pilot
Streag~
(l)
12)(3)
14)
15) (61
{ l) Pilot strength exceeds T_ADD. Mobile staUon sends a Pilot Strer~gth

Measurement Message and transfers pilot to the Candidate Set.
(2) Base station sends a HandoffDirection Message.
17
(3) Mobile staUon transfers pilot to the Active Set and sends a Hando.~
Completion Message.
(4) Pilot strength drops below T_DROP. Mobile station starts the handoff
drop timer.
21
(5) Handoff drop timer expires. Mobile station sends a Pilot Strength
Measurement Message.
|6) Base station sends a HandoffDtrection Message.
(7) Mobile station moves pilot from the AcUve Set to the Neighbor Set and
sends a Handoff Completion Message.
Figure 6.6.6.3-1. Handoff Threshold Example
ITC COMP 00081719


Page 6- t83
TIA/E]A/IS-95-A
Pilot
Strength
T_ADD
tO
tl
t2
Time
Candidate Set~ Pilot PO

Active Set: Pilots., P I, P2
to ~ Pilot Strength Measurement Message sent. Po > T_ADD

tl u Pilot Strength Measurement Message ~ent. P0 > P1 + T_COMP xO.5 dB
t2 ~ Pilot Strength Measurement Message sent, P0 > P2 T_COMP x 0.5 dB
Figure 6.6.6.3-2. Pi/ot Strength Measurements Td~ered by a Candi(tate Pilot
6.6.7 Hash Functions and Randomization

6.6.7.1 Hash Function
Certain procedures require a uniform distribution of mobile stations among N resources.

The following function returns an integer, using as arguments the mobile stations IMSI or
ESN, the number of resources N. and a modifier DECORI~ The modifier serves to
decorrelate the values obtained for the various applications from the same mobile station.
If the hashing function is to be used for determining the Access Channel PN
Randomization, HASH_KEY shall be equal to the mobile station ESN. Other~vise.
HASH_KEY shall be equal to the 32 least significant bits of IMSI_S1 + 224 IMSI_S2).
ITC COMP 00081720

EXHIBIT 2
&
Europisches Patentamt
(19)
European Patent Office

Office europen des brevets
(11)
EP 1 708 384 A1
EUROPEAN PATENT APPLICATION
(12)
(43) Date of publication:
(51) Int Cl.:

H04B 7/005 (2006.01)
04.10.2006 Bulletin 2006/40
(21) Application number: 06251056.5

(22) Date of filing: 28.02.2006
(84) Designated Contracting States:
AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GB GR
HU IE IS IT LI LT LU LV MC NL PL PT RO SE SI
SK TR
Designated Extension States:
AL BA HR MK YU
(30) Priority: 29.03.2005 US 91754
Masoomzadeh-Fard, Ali
Marlboro,
New Jersey 07746 (US)
Meyers, Martin Howard
Montclair,
Nabhane, Walid Elias
Bedminster,
(71) Applicant: LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC.

Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974-0636 (US)
Lucent Technologies EUR-IP UK Ltd

Unit 18, Core 3
Workzone
Innova Business Park
Electric Avenue
Enfield, EN3 7XU (GB)
(72) Inventors:
Dominique, Francis
Rockaway,
(54)
(74) Representative: Cockayne, Gillian et al
Method of detecting mobile stations not following power control commands

ence between the measured SIR and average SIR target
values. The generated error metrics may be averaged
over a given time duration to determine at least one (or
more) average error value(s), and the mobile station is
determined as violating a power control command if the
at least one or more average error value(s) exceed a
given threshold.
EP 1 708 384 A1
(57)
In a method of detecting a mobile station that is
not following a power control command, for each time
slot, a received signal-to-interference ratio (SIR) value
of the mobile as measured by a given base station is
compared with a given average SIR target value. An error
metric may be generated for each slot based on a differ-
Printed by Jouve, 75001 PARIS (FR)

1
EP 1 708 384 A1
Description
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Field of the Invention
[0001] The present invention relates generally to methods of detecting mobile stations not following received
power control commands in wireless communication systems or networks.
10
Description of the Related Art

[0002] Wireless communication systems typically include a plurality of base stations, where one or more base
stations may serve a geographic area commonly referred
to as a cell. Users of the wireless communication system
may communicate with each other and/or with the communication system. The physical equipment at the base
stations may be referred to as system equipment. In wireless communication systems, communication can occur
between two mobile stations (e.g., two cell phones, wireless computers, PDAs, etc.) and/or between mobiles and
system equipment.
[0003] The communication system typically may operate in accordance with established rules promulgated by
governmental and/or industry groups. These rules are
typically established as standards by which wireless
communication systems are to be in compliance with.
The standards may contain various protocols that dictate
the operation of the wireless communication systems.
Generally, a protocol may be understood as a set of rules
that may specify how communication (voice and/or data)
within a given communication system may be initiated,
maintained and/or terminated.
[0004] A mobile located in a particular cell being served
by a base station communicates with other mobiles
and/or with other communication systems via the base
station. The signals from the mobile may be transmitted
to a receiving mobile or to another communication system via the base station of the cell within which the mobile
is located.
[0005] As a mobile move through cells being served
by different base stations, communication from the mobile may be handled by different base stations. For example, communication for a mobile moving from one cell
to another cell may be transferred from one base station
to another base station of the cell. The process in which
communication for a mobile is transferred from one base
station (i.e., the original base station) to another base
station (i.e., the target base station) is known as "handoff." A mobile located at the edge of a serving cell and in
the vicinity or near a target cell typically will request a
handoff to the target cell, depending on the relative
strength of communication signals of neighboring base
stations.
[0006] In wireless communication systems or networks, the base stations typically may transmit pilot sig-
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
nals periodically. The mobiles receive these pilot signals

and may be configured so as to measure the strength of
these pilot signals. A mobile may request a handoff to
one or more base stations based on the relative measured strengths of the pilot signals of the base stations.
The network may also trigger a handoff procedure based
on periodic measurement reports received from a given
mobile, or for other reasons such as congestion in a cell
that a given mobile is connected to.
[0007] One type of handoff used in several spread
spectrum-based wireless communication systems such
as Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) systems is
referred to as a soft hand off. In a soft handoff, communication with the target base station may be established
prior to communication with the original base station is
terminated. Also during soft handoff, the mobile may typically be in simultaneous communication with greater
than one base station. In this manner, no interruption of
communication to and from the mobile occurs. Eventually, when the soft handoff has terminated, the mobile
communicates with another mobile or another communication system via the target base station.
[0008] Power control is used in both the downlink (base
station to mobile) and uplink (mobile to base station) of
CDMA systems to reduce interference and/or to ensure
a desired target block error rate. For each dedicated
channel, there is a closed loop to control transmitter power. This is commonly known as inner loop power control.
[0009] For downlink power control, the mobile measures received signal to interference ratio (SIR) and may
issue an up power command in the uplink if the measured
SIR is below a given threshold. Otherwise, the mobile
issues a down power command in the uplink to the base
station where measured SIR exceeds the threshold. This
power control command (TPC) may be transmitted periodically to the base station(s) to which mobile is connected. The period of TPC may be referred to as a slot or
power control group. If a mobile is in soft handoff, all base
stations in communication with the mobile receive the
TPC command that is transmitted in the uplink.
[0010] For uplink power control, each base station
measures received SIR of a given mobile and may issue
an up power command on the downlink to the mobile, if
the measured SIR is below a given threshold. This threshold may be referred to as SIR target. If the measured
SIR exceeds SIR target, the base station issues a down
power command. The SIR target itself may be adjusted
based on the number of errors in the received blocks
from the mobile. If a received block is erroneous the SIR
target is raised, otherwise the SIR target is lowered where
the received block is not erroneous.
[0011] During soft handover, more than one base station may send TPC commands to the mobile. There are
several ways in which a mobile may change its power
due to different TPC commands received from each base
station. As a general rule, if one base station sends a
down power command, and that command was reliably
received at the mobile, the mobile will reduce its transmit

3
EP 1 708 384 A1
power, ignoring the other commands. This is done since

it is typically sufficient that only one base station decodes
the data properly, while reducing interference for other
users. For the same reasons, as a general rule, the mobile will raise its transmit power if all reliably received
TPC commands are up power commands.
[0012] However there may be situations where a mobile ignores the TPC commands from some of the base
stations. A first reason may be where the received TPC
command is not reliable. A mobile may ignore the TPC
command if the received command is not reliable. The
reliability criterion may be specified at the mobile, for example. This situation is typically common during handoff,
when the received signal from some base stations is
weak and the received TPC commands are not reliable.
The receiving mobile may employ a quality metric and
compares that metric to a given threshold to decide
whether to use the TPC command, or ignore it. This comparison is applicable in a simplex mode (non-handoff
mode) of operation or when the mobile is in handoff
mode.
[0013] Another situation where a mobile might ignore
TPC commands from one or more base stations is when
a new leg (new base station) is added to the active set
(of base stations in communication with a given mobile)
on the network side. In this situation, the radio network
controller (RNC) at the network sends a message to the
mobile to update its active set. During the time that the
new leg is added to the active set on network side, until
the mobile updates its active set, any TPC commands
sent from the new leg are ignored at the mobile.
[0014] Another situation where a mobile might ignore
TPC commands from one or more base stations is when
a mobile drops a leg. The signaling procedure for dropping a leg may be generally explained as follows. When
the RNC decides to drop a leg, a message is sent on the
downlink to the mobile. After dropping that leg from its
active set, the mobile sends a confirmation message on
the uplink to the network. The RNC updates the active
set when the confirmation is received from mobile. During
the period from when the mobile updates its active set
until the base station (leg) being dropped stops its transmission to the mobile, the TPC commands from the leg
to be dropped are ignored by the mobile.
[0015] If a situation arises which is not applicable to
any of the above cases, i.e., the TPC command is not
reliable or the mobile is adding or dropping a leg, the
mobile must follow the commands received from the base
station(s). Therefore, if the mobile ignores the downlink
TPC commands due to any other reason, the RNC should
be able to identify and drop that mobile. Otherwise, the
mobile might transmit at an unnecessary high transmit
power, which may increase uplink interference and cause
a reduction in the system or network capacity.
10
15
20
25
tion is directed to a method of detecting a mobile station

that is not following a power control command. In the
method, and for each time slot, a received signal-to-interference ratio (SIR) value of the mobile as measured
by a given base station is compared with a given average
SIR target value. An error metric may be generated for
each slot based on a difference between the measured
SIR and average SIR target values. The generated error
metrics may be averaged over a given time duration to
determine at least one (or more) average error value(s),
and the mobile station is determined as violating a power
control command if the at least one (or more) average
error value(s) exceed a given threshold.
[0017] Another example embodiment of the present
invention is directed to a method of determining whether
to drop a call associated with a mobile station that is not
following a power control command. In the method, an
error metric may be generated on a slot-by-slot basis
based on a difference between a measured SIR value of
the mobile at a given base station and a given, average
SIR target value. The generated error metrics may be
averaged over a given time duration to determine at least
one (or more) average error value(s). If the at least one
(or more) average error value(s) exceeds a given threshold, the call associated with the mobile is dropped.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
30
35
40
45
[0018] Example embodiments of the present invention

will become more fully understood from the detailed description given herein below and the accompanying
drawings, wherein like elements are represented by like
reference numerals, which are given by way of illustration
only and thus are not limitative of the example embodiments of the present invention.
FIG. 1 is a flowchart describing a method of detecting
a mobile station that is not following a power control
command, in accordance with an example embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. 2 is a flowchart describing a method of determining whether to drop a call associated with a mobile station that is not following a power control command, in accordance with an example embodiment
of the present invention.
FIGS. 3 and 4 are graphs illustrating results from a
simulation of the detection methodology in accordance with the example embodiments of the present
invention.
50
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EXAMPLE EMBODIMENTS
55
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

[0016]
An example embodiment of the present inven-
[0019] Although the following description relates to a

network based on one or more of CDMA (IS95,
cdma2000 and various technology variations), UMTS
(release 99, R4, R5, R6 and above), GSM, 802.11 and/or
related technologies, and will be described in this exam-

5
EP 1 708 384 A1
ple context, it should be noted that the example embodiments shown and described herein are meant to be illustrative only and not limiting in any way. As such, various modifications will be apparent to those skilled in the
art for application to communication systems or networks
based on technologies other than the above, which may
be in various stages of development and intended for
future replacement of, or use with, the above networks
or systems.
[0020] As used herein, the terms mobile or mobile station may be synonymous to a mobile user, user equipment (UE), user, subscriber, wireless terminal and/or remote station, and may describe a remote user of wireless
resources in a wireless communication network. Where
used below, the term base station is synonymous with
base transceiver station or Node-B and may describe
equipment that provides voice and/or data connectivity
between a communicafion network and one or more mobile stations.
[0021] In general, the example embodiments of the
present invention are directed to a methodology which
may facilitate identifying or detecting one or more mobiles
that are not following downlink TPC commands. The example embodiments also introduce a methodology that
may drop a call associated with a given mobile if the
mobile does not listen to TPC commands from the network, due to some problems which may be unknown to
the network.
[0022] As in any detection problem, the proposed
methodologies may be adapted so as to reduce the probability of false alarm (detecting mobiles in the three scenarios described above) and to maximize the probability
of detection (mobiles ignoring the TPC commands that
do not fit in any of the thee above-mentioned scenarios).
[0023] In general, for normal mobile behavior during
closed loop power control, there should be a mix of up
and down power commands. Usually, each time slot
(smallest duration over which certain control information
including a TPC command is being transmitted) contains
an up command or a down command. Therefore, the
absolute value of summation of up and down commands,
over a window that is large enough relative to a time slot
duration, should approach zero.
[0024] FIG. 1 is a flowchart describing a method of
detecting a mobile station that is not following a power
control command, in accordance with an example
embodiment of the present invention. As shown in FIG.
1, in a method 100, a received SIR value (SIRactual),
measured in every slot (slot-by-slot basis) by a base
station receiver serving the mobile is compared (110)
with the average SIR target value (SIRtarget_ave). The
difference between these two metrics may be used to
generate an error metric, referred to as SIRerr, (120). The
SIRerr may be averaged (130) over a given period or
duration of time, referred to as Avg_Time, to determine
an average SIRerrvalue, which may be referred to as
SIRerr_ ave.
[0025] The SIRerr_ave value may then be stored (140)
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
in a First In First Out (FIFO) buffer that has a given buffer

length, referred to as Buffer_Len. If at least one, several
(or all) stored average SIR error (SiRerr_ave) values in the
FIFO buffer exceed a given threshold, referred to herein
as Err_Threshold, it is determined (150) that the mobile
is violating power control commands due to some unknown problems at the network. The number of SIRerr_ave
values exceeding the Err_Threshold in the buffer needed
to report a power control violation may be referred to as
N_Err_SIR. N_Err_SIR may be set to any value between
1 and Buffer_Len, for example.
[0026] The mobile determined as violating a power
control command may thus be violating the power control
command for a reason other than the three scenarios
described above, i.e., the mobile has determined that the
power control command is not reliable, or the mobile is
adding a leg to its active set of base stations, or the mobile
is dropping a leg from its active set of base stations.
[0027] The parameters Err_Threshold, Avg_Time, N_
Err_SIR and Buffer_Len may be set in advance to given
values, as desired. In selecting these parameters, Err_
Threshold, Avg_Time, N_Err_SIR and Buffer_Len
should be chosen so as to minimize or reduce the probability of false alarm while maximizing the probability of
detection for a mobile that is not listening to TPC commands due to unknown problems at the network.
[0028] In general, if choosing substantially small values for these four parameters (i.e., Avg_Time=1 slot, N_
Err_SIR=1, Buffer_Len=1, Err_Threshold=0, it is relatively easy to discern that there may always be a given
slot that the mobile exceeds the target SIR. Therefore,
all mobiles will be seen as violating, which may increase
the probability of false alarms (i.e., rejecting good mobiles
in the three above-described scenarios (unreliable TPC
command, adding leg, dropping leg). On the other hand,
selecting substantially large values of Err_Threshold,
Avg_Time, N_Err_SIR and Buffer_Len (i.e., in an example where Avg_Time*Buffer_Len is equal to 1 minute, N_
Err_SIR = Buffer_Len and the Err_Threshold exceeds
the maximum SIR target possible such that no mobiles
will be detected) may decrease the probability of detection, potentially resulting in capacity loss. Accordingly,
selection of the above-noted parameters should account
for the above factors.
[0029] FIG. 2 is a flowchart describing a method of
determining whether to drop a call associated with a mobile station that is not following a power control command,
in accordance with an example embodiment of the
present invention. The functions in FIG. 2 are somewhat
similar to FIG. 1, thus a detailed explanation is omitted
for purposes of brevity. In the method 200 shown in FIG.
2, an error metric SIRerrmay be generated (210) on a
slot-by-slot basis based on a difference between a measured SIR value of the mobile at a given base station
(SIRactual)and a given, average SIR target value
(SIRtarget_ave). The generated SlRerr metrics may be averaged (220) over a given time duration to determine at
least one average error value (SIRerr_ave), and stored

7
EP 1 708 384 A1
(230) in the FIFO buffer with a Buffer_Len size, as described above. If the at least one (some, or all) of the
stored average error value(s) exceeds a given threshold,
the call associated with the mobile is dropped (230). The
number of SIRerr_ave values exceeding the Err_Threshold in the Buffer needed to report a power control violation
is known as N_Err_SIR. It is straightforward that N_Err_
SIR can be set to any value between 1 and Buffer_Len.
In another example, if at least N_Err_SIR (N_Err_
SIR=1,... Buffer_Len) average error value(s) (i.e., N_ErrSIR number of StRerr_ave values) out of the last Buffer_
Len (Buffer_Len 1) calculated StRerr_ave values) exceed Err_Threshold, the mobile is determined as a violator and the call is dropped.
[0030] One of the advantages of the proposed methodologies is that the methods may be immune to fading
channel variations. In fading channels, the received SIR
might jump up or down by a substantial amount. This
could cause several up or down power commands in a
row. The proposed methodologies are immune to these
jumps. The metrics used in this approach are averages
over a desired, given time duration to average out the
instantaneous jumps in the received signal at the base
station.
[0031] For example, the conventional approach is to
count the number of consecutive down power commands
sent by a base station to the mobile. The number is then
compared to a threshold. If the number of consecutive
down power commands exceeds the threshold, the mobile is declared in violation. Since there are an innumerable variety of scenarios that could lead to multiple down
power commands being consecutively transmitted (an
obvious one being that the mobile is transmitting at its
minimum power and is close geographically to the base
station), the threshold must be set to a substantially large
number in order to achieve a low probability of false
alarm. The conventional method has a substantially low
probability of detection, since any deep fading, even for
a short period of time, can lead to a generation of an up
power command (due to low received SIR measurement)
by the base station. This leads to an unnecessary resetting of the counter.
[0032] Benefits of the proposed methods include parameters (Err_Threshold, Avg_Time, N_Err_SIR and
Buffer_Len) which can be adjusted so as to detect any
mobile violation of a downlink power control command
with a high probability. The proposed methodologies may
help to reduce the probability of false alarm when a mobile ignores the TPC commands from base station(s) due
to normal behavior i.e., when mobile is in simplex or nonhandoff mode). This may be due in part to the fact that
the proposed methods are immune to channel variations
(fading environments).
[0033] Additionally, the parameters Err_Threshold,
Avg_Time, N_Err_SIR and Buffer_Len can be chosen to
have a duration larger than any of the duration of the
false alarm scenarios described above. For example, in
a UMTS network, the duration should not exceed 4 * 80
ms, thus reducing the probability of false alarm (PFA) to

be practically zero. In a simulation by the inventors to be
described hereafter, for 20 minutes or 120 thousand
frames, the observed PFA was equal to 0, which suggests
a probability of false alarm below 8.33*e-6).
Example Simulations
10
15
20
25
30
35
[0034] As discussed in general above, one scenario in

an example system (such as a UMTS network) where
the mobile might be ignoring a power control command
is when its active set is updated at the UMTS Terrestrial
Radio Access Network (UTRAN) side. In this scenario,
the RNC sends an update message such as
"L3_ACTIVE_SET_UPDATE" to the UE (mobile) to update its active set. There may be a delay of 80 msec or
more, during which the new Node B (base station) that
is being updated in the UEs active set is transmitting and
the UE does not listen to TPC commands from that Node
B (only for adding or swapping). This delay could increase
where there are poor radio link conditions, due to retransmission delay, for example.
[0035] Before uplink (UL) synchronization, a new leg
(new Node B) sends all up power commands. After UL
synchronization, TPC commands in the downlink (DL)
will be ignored until the time at which the UE updates its
active set.
[0036] Another scenario generally described above is
when the UE drops a leg and the UTRAN is waiting for
an update message to drop the leg such as a command
"L3_ACTIVE_SET_UPDATE-CNF" from the UE. During
this period, the UE ignores the TPC commands from that
leg. As discussed above, the difference between the SIR
measured by the Node B and the average target SIR can
be observed to determine SIRerr, as shown by the following expression.
40
45
50
55
[0037] In the above expression, SIRerr and

SIRtarget_ave are averaged over the same, given time duration. The given time duration may be referred to as a
measurement period or window. The window for averaging may be set to 80 msec, for example, although the
example embodiments are not limited to an 80 millisecond window. In an example, if the average SIR error value
(SIRerr_ave) is greater than the threshold Err_Threshold
for the given time duration, i.e., up to
N_Err_SIR=Buffer_Lenconsecutive measurement periods, a violation is detected (i.e., the UE is detected as
ignoring a TPC command). As SIRerr_ave _is readily available as a parameter in the current one-chip ASIC solutions for system integration every Avg_Time = 80 msec,
the determination can be made with minimal computational complexity at desired processing speeds.
[0038] FIGS. 3 and 4 are graphs illustrating results

9
EP 1 708 384 A1
from a simulation of the detection methodology in accordance with the example embodiments of the present invention.
[0039] The graphs in FIGS. 3 and 4 illustrate the
number (n=N_Err_SIR-Buffer_Len) of consecutive 80
millisecond windows over which SIRerr_ave exceeds Err_
Threshold, as a function of the number of false alarms.
The following Table 1 lists the parameters set for the
example simulation(s) of a given mobile and Node B in
a UMTS network.
10
Table 1: Parameters for Simulation

Set parameters
12.2 kbps DL and UL
15
Denver pathloss file

Mobile speed: 100, 300 kmph
Pilot power: 33 dBm
UE max Tx power: 21 dBm
20
UE Min Tx power: -50 dBm

Node B Max Tx power: 33 dBm
Node B Min Tx power: -13 dB/Pilot
25
Inner loop power control step size: 1 Db
10
[0042] However, the selection of Buffer_Len, N_Err_

SIR Err_Threshold and Avg_time is network-dependent.
Accordingly, the above methodology may be employed
for any network based on one or more of CDMA (IS95,
cdma2000 and various technology variations), UMTS
(release 99, R4, R5, R6 and above), GSM, 802.11 and/or
related technologies, including communication systems
or networks based on technologies other than the above,
which may be in various stages of development and intended for future replacement of, or use with, the above
networks or systems.
[0043] Accordingly, the parameters Err_Threshold,
Avg_Time, N_Err_SIR and Buffer_Len used in the example methodologies are available at the base station
receiver, and thus do not depend on a specific mobile.
Therefore the example approach described herein may
be substantially efficient so as to avoid any capacity loss,
while being substantially cost effective.
[0044] The example embodiments of the present invention being thus described, it will be obvious that the
same may be varied in many ways. Such variations are
not to be regarded as departure from the spirit and scope
of the example embodiments of the present invention,
and all such modifications as would be obvious to one
skilled in the art are intended to be included within the
scope of the following claims.
DL and UL target BLER: 1%

Claims
OLPC step up: 0.5 dB

30
Total NodeB Tx power: 43 dBm
1.
DL orthogonal factor: 0.2

DL loading: 50% (pilot Ec/lo = -7 dB)
comparing, each time slot, a received signal-tointerference ratio (SIR) value of the mobile as
measured by a given base station with a given
average SIR target value (110);
generating an error metric for each slot based
on a difference between the measured SIR and
average SIR target values (120);
averaging the generated error metrics over a
given time duration to determine at least one or
more average error value(s) (130); and
determining that the mobile station is violating a
power control command if the at least one or
more average error value(s) exceed a given
threshold (150).
35
[0040] The simulation was run for 20 minutes at mobile

speeds of 100 and 300 kmph. The 20 minute time exemplified a typical time for a call. The simulation parameters
varied included Err_Threshold and Buffer_Len. The
range of values evaluated for Err_Threshold was between 0 and 2 dB in steps of 0.5 dB. The range of values
evaluated for Buffer_Len was between 1 and 16. For the
simulation, the number of false alarms were counted over
the duration of a the 20 minute call and plotted as a function of Buffer_Len. N_Err_SIR was always set to be equal
to Buffer_Len.
[0041] As can be seen from the example simulation
(s), the number of false alarms may be more sensitive to
Buffer_Len, i.e., the number of consecutive 80 msec windows or measurement periods over which SIRerr_ave exceeds Err_Threshold to count a false alarm. As show in
the example graphs, the threshold does not change the
results much as far as Err_Threshold is greater than 0.5
dB. For mobile speeds up to 100 kmph in these particular
simulations, a recommended value for Buffer_Len is
shown as at least 7. For mobile speeds of 300 kmph
Buffer_Len may be selected to be at least 12.
A method of detecting a mobile station that is not

following a power control command, comprising:
40
45
2.
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
50
storing the at least one average error value in a

buffer having a given buffer length (140),
55
wherein a plurality of average SIR error values are

stored in the buffer, and determining includes determining that the mobile station is violating a power
control command if N stored average SIR error values in the buffer, N=1 up to a given buffer length,

11
EP 1 708 384 A1
exceed the given threshold.

3.
4.
The method of claim 1, wherein the mobile determined as violating a power control command is violating the power control command for a reason other
than
the mobile has determined that the power control
command is not reliable, or
the mobile is adding a leg to its active set of base
stations, or
the mobile is dropping a leg from its active set of
base stations.
9.
10. The method of claim 8, further comprising:
15
5.
A method of determining whether to drop a call associated with a mobile station that is not following a
power control command, comprising:
generating an error metric on a slot-by-slot basis
based on a difference between a measured SIR
value of the mobile at a given base station and
a given, average SIR target value (210);
averaging the generated error metrics over a
given time duration to determine at least one or
more average error value(s) (220);
dropping a call associated with the mobile, if the
at least one or more average error value(s) exceed a given threshold (240).
6.
7.
8.
The method of claim 5, wherein dropping includes

determining that the mobile station is violating a power control command if the at least one (or more) average error value(s) exceeds a given threshold.
The method of claim 6, wherein the mobile determined as violating a power control commend is violating the power control command for a reason other
than
the mobile has determined that the power control
command is not reliable, or
the mobile is adding a leg to its active set of base
stations, or
the mobile is dropping a leg from its active set of
base stations.
The method of claim 8, wherein

a plurality of average SIR error values are stored in
the buffer, and
dropping includes determining that the mobile station is violating a power control command if N stored
average SIR error values, N= 1 up to a given buffer
length, exceed the given threshold.
10

selecting values for the given time duration, given threshold and given buffer length so as to
reduce the probability of false alarm while maximizing the probability of detection for the mobile
that is not listening to power control commands,
due to problems unknown at a network serving
the mobile.
12
selecting values for the given time duration,

threshold, buffer length and the number of errors
exceeding threshold inside that buffer so as to
reduce the probability of false alarm while maximizing the probability of detection for the mobile
that is not listening to power control commands,
due to problems unknown at a network serving
the mobile.
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
storing the at least one average error value in a

buffer having a given buffer length (230).

EP 1 708 384 A1

EP 1 708 384 A1

EP 1 708 384 A1
10

EP 1 708 384 A1
11

EP 1 708 384 A1
12

15-11-04 Apple Reply in Support of Alice Motion Against Two Ericsson Patents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

15-11-04 Apple Reply in Support of Alice Motion Against Two Ericsson Patents

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

15-11-04 Apple Reply in Support of Alice Motion Against Two Ericsson Patents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:15-cv-00154-JD Document 141 Filed 11/04/15 Page 1 of 19

WILLIAM F. LEE (admitted pro hac vice)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

APPLE INC., a California Corporation,

Case No. 3:15-cv-00154-JD

APPLES REPLY BRIEF IN

Hon. James Donato

APPLES REPLY BRIEF ISO

Case 3:15-cv-00154-JD Document 141 Filed 11/04/15 Page 2 of 19

Alice Step 1: The Essence of the Alleged 917 Invention Is The

Alice Step 2: Ericsson Relies on Non-Existent and Generic Claim

Alice Step 1: The Essence of the Alleged 990 Invention Is The

Alice Step 2: Ericsson Relies on Non-Existent and Generic Claim

APPLES REPLY BRIEF ISO

Case 3:15-cv-00154-JD Document 141 Filed 11/04/15 Page 3 of 19

Accenture Global Svcs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,

Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,

Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DirecTV, LLC,

Comcast IP Holdings I, LLC v. Sprint Commcns Co.,

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,

APPLES REPLY BRIEF ISO

Case 3:15-cv-00154-JD Document 141 Filed 11/04/15 Page 4 of 19

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,

Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Pship,

Vehicle Intelligence & Safety LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,

35 U.S.C. 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim

APPLES REPLY BRIEF ISO

Case 3:15-cv-00154-JD Document 141 Filed 11/04/15 Page 5 of 19

following commands to an individual while ignoring commands broadcast to a group. In

inventions. Ericsson improperly relies on non-existent or generic claim limitations in an attempt

that is at their heart into a patent-eligible invention.1

APPLES REPLY BRIEF ISO

Case 3:15-cv-00154-JD Document 141 Filed 11/04/15 Page 6 of 19

The 917 patent relates to event-based measurement reporting: Rather than

Abstract; col. 3, ll. 30-44.)

APPLES REPLY BRIEF ISO

Case 3:15-cv-00154-JD Document 141 Filed 11/04/15 Page 7 of 19

The limitations identified by Ericssonusing a mobile radio to measure, add, and

report network information for purposes of handover or power controlrepresent

APPLES REPLY BRIEF ISO

Case 3:15-cv-00154-JD Document 141 Filed 11/04/15 Page 8 of 19

use or technological environment, such as the Internet.).

mobile-station measurement. . . . Accordingly, the occurrence of an event and/or the satisfaction

redundant measurement reports that do not convey relevant or new measurement

APPLES REPLY BRIEF ISO

Case 3:15-cv-00154-JD Document 141 Filed 11/04/15 Page 9 of 19

based measurement reportingand the abstract concept found to be patent ineligible.

(Nettleton Decl. (Dkt. 126) 23.)

Alice Step 2: Ericsson Relies on Non-Existent and Generic Claim Limitations

APPLES REPLY BRIEF ISO

Case 3:15-cv-00154-JD Document 141 Filed 11/04/15 Page 10 of 19

abstract idea points to a particular element of a patents claims as solving a computer-centric

claims into a patent-eligible invention.

APPLES REPLY BRIEF ISO

Case 3:15-cv-00154-JD Document 141 Filed 11/04/15 Page 11 of 19

preemptive effect . . . .).

To the contrary, the claims recite conventional features of mobile radiosmeasure,

offset, measured radio-related parameter . . . with respect to a predetermined condition). (See

(if a patents recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to implemen[t] an abstract